Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Interviews
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Martin Orford August 2009
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMartin Orford August 2009
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 10111213>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 15:29
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

 
Oh btw - my 20% example was total sales for all artists, not 20% for one - in other words a d/loader could download 5 artists and only buy albums from 4 of them - in that respect 4 artists have lost nothing and 1 has lost everything - I think that is the more likely scenario - but, again, no one knows what happens.


Wrong. This assumes that the person would have bought from all five artists in the absence of file sharing, something even you can't believe is true.
This is not about 5 artists or 4 artists but about a d/loader who has 5,000 titles on his iPlod and only paid for 4,000 of them. I just used the simplified example of 5 artists and 4 artists to get away from the use of percentages, (which sounded all too scientific and exact for this particular mindgame), to demonstrate that it does not necessarily mean that each and every artist has suffered an equal loss.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

If that person would only have spent money on the two artists he was fairly certain he would like out of that crop of five, then the gain is 100%. If it turned out he didn't like one of them and sold their records on to a second.hand record shop, the gain would be 400%.
Confused whose gain would be 400%?

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Seriously, the old canard of "one download = one lost sale" has not only been discredited a thousand times over, but doesn't hold up if you think about it for even a second.
Anything taken out of context looks dumb, and I certainly look dumb when you take this particular example out of its context, but in its original context, my example has nothing to do with that old "duck" and at no point did I, or would I ever, make that equation. Tongue
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 15:57
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Confused whose gain would be 400%?


Sorry, bad math, it should be 300%. If downloading causes someone to buy 4x CDs/downloads instead of buying 2x CDs and then selling off 1xCD, the gain is 300%.

If someone has 4,000 paid-for and 1,000 unpaid-for tracks on their iPod, who's to say what the proportion would have been if filesharing didn't exist? Maybe they'd only have 2,000 paid-for tracks as they'd never have been exposed to the creators behind the other 2,000 paid ones and the 1,000 unpaid ones. It's all speculation anyway, because short of finding an internet-free Western enclave to measure against, you'll never be certain.

The point, again, is what all these proposed restrictions, ostensibly required by the supposed scourge of file sharing, mean in a greater context.

You can oppose the restrictions without thinking that people leeching off of creators is a good thing. If someone suggests arming kids with automatic weapons to protect them from pedophiles, opposing that and pointing out the many dangers of such a policy does not make you pro-pedophilia.

Violent overreaction to a perceived problem is dangerous, and if you're opposed to the reaction itself but still spend time validating the very arguments that its proponents are using, you are effectively on their side.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Confused whose gain would be 400%?


Sorry, bad math, it should be 300%. If downloading causes someone to buy 4x CDs/downloads instead of buying 2x CDs and then selling off 1xCD, the gain is 300%.
No, which ever way you carve it the net income for the artist remains the same and can never exceed 100%. Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.
 
The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


If someone has 4,000 paid-for and 1,000 unpaid-for tracks on their iPod, who's to say what the proportion would have been if filesharing didn't exist? Maybe they'd only have 2,000 paid-for tracks as they'd never have been exposed to the creators behind the other 2,000 paid ones and the 1,000 unpaid ones. It's all speculation anyway, because short of finding an internet-free Western enclave to measure against, you'll never be certain.
No one can be certain of anything other than human nature, and each human will find a balance between illegal downloads and legal purchases that eases their conscience, and those ratios will differ from person to person so there is no definitive answer to any of this and certainly no "average".
 
Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


The point, again, is what all these proposed restrictions, ostensibly required by the supposed scourge of file sharing, mean in a greater context.

You can oppose the restrictions without thinking that people leeching off of creators is a good thing. If someone suggests arming kids with automatic weapons to protect them from pedophiles, opposing that and pointing out the many dangers of such a policy does not make you pro-pedophilia.

Violent overreaction to a perceived problem is dangerous, and if you're opposed to the reaction itself but still spend time validating the very arguments that its proponents are using, you are effectively on their side.
You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Edited by Dean - October 03 2009 at 16:51
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 18:12
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.

 
So, you're saying that a second-hand purchase does not equal a lost full-price sale? Do you really think so? I'd say it's clearly a lost purchase for the artist,and if they're happy about it, they obviously don't feel to strongly about enforcing the idea of "only full-price paying customers should hear my music".

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.


But the artist loses a customer. If you're so opposed to file sharing, you really should be against used record shops as well.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.


Sure. How do you propose to enforce the ability of the artists to decide that?

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Bad people want to close down the internet. Those bad people use "think of the poor artists" as one of the main reasons to impose restrictions on and monitor use of the internet. When you say, "Think of the poor artists", you help them. When you help them, you endanger everything that's good about the internet.

And: not wanting bad people to close down the internet is not an endorsement of the net's seedier and less savory aspects.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 03 2009 at 20:32
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Subsequent re-sale of a CD does not affect the artist - he's already been paid for that CD and he's happy.

So, you're saying that a second-hand purchase does not equal a lost full-price sale? Do you really think so? I'd say it's clearly a lost purchase for the artist,and if they're happy about it, they obviously don't feel to strongly about enforcing the idea of "only full-price paying customers should hear my music".
well, that's two questions, I'll answer the second here and the first in the next thought bubble otherwise I'll have nothing to say in that one.
 
That's not why artists are opposed to illegal filesharing. They don't oppose music stores selling their products at discount prices either, but they are opposed to bootleg CDs.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

The purchaser recouped some of his outlay by selling off one CD, but not the full sticker-price (unless the value of the CD increased dramatically in the meantime) - he has reduced his loss from 100% to something like 87.5%.


But the artist loses a customer. If you're so opposed to file sharing, you really should be against used record shops as well.
There is only one copy of the CD - the artist has already been paid for it. Once the original purchaser has sold it he no longer has it. There isn't suddenly two copies of the CD in circulation. Selling second hand CDs is not illegal - making a duplicate copy of the CD and selling that is illegal. Which one of those two does filesharing most resemble?
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Eitherway, If free downloads are a good promotional tool, then shouldn't it be the artist decision whether to use that method or not.


Sure. How do you propose to enforce the ability of the artists to decide that?
I don't know - Withdrawl of labour?
 
What if we get the artists to say "Please"? Would a picture of a kitten help?
 
We are supposed to be a civilised society, honesty and fair play should be enough.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

You've veered way off here and I'm not following.


Bad people want to close down the internet. Those bad people use "think of the poor artists" as one of the main reasons to impose restrictions on and monitor use of the internet. When you say, "Think of the poor artists", you help them. When you help them, you endanger everything that's good about the internet.

And: not wanting bad people to close down the internet is not an endorsement of the net's seedier and less savory aspects.
No, I didn't explain myself clearly - when I said I don't follow, I mean I'm not following you down that path of discussion. I'm out.
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 00:36
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

What if we get the artists to say "Please"? Would a picture of a kitten help?
 
We are supposed to be a civilised society, honesty and fair play should be enough.


Now you're getting it. That's exactly what goodwill and convenience is all about; treating fans fairly, giving them opportunity to spend money on extra value and incentive  to pay for what they consume and enjoy. All of that doesn't require impotently railing against illegal downloads, but accepting that they are part of today's reality and adapting accordingly.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

No, I didn't explain myself clearly - when I said I don't follow, I mean I'm not following you down that path of discussion. I'm out.


So you're not discussing the very crux of the question. Fine.

But that again confirms what I've been saying about the poor standard of education regarding what's really at stake on the part of those who seem incensed at the very thought of any person anywhere getting anything for free. Especially as it's usually done in the name of artists whose livelihoods by all accounts are nowhere near threatened.
Back to Top
Wilcey View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2696 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 04:02
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:


P.P.S. so you see, Nick & Martin's anger just seems like sour grapes. Others in far more challenging situations are doing it. And most were never part of a nationally prominent music trend in a compact country media wise (the U.K. vs the U.S.) ...



http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=55714

WHERE ARE YOU READING ANGER AND BITTERNESS????? WHERE ARE THESE SOUR GRAPES???


Don't make things up just to make an argument look stronger, you did the interview with Nick, I really am not seeing any of this anger you talk about, reading it again it doesn't look like a band that are not managing.

I thought it was a fairly upbeat interview, it was honest and full of the reality of stuff, highs and lows.

Why would you suddenly claim Nick Barrett to be angry and full of sour grapes? 



Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 05:29
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Now you're getting it. That's exactly what goodwill and convenience is all about; treating fans fairly, giving them opportunity to spend money on extra value and incentive  to pay for what they consume and enjoy. All of that doesn't require impotently railing against illegal downloads, but accepting that they are part of today's reality and adapting accordingly.

And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation. Everybody has the right to complain about injustice whether it is a futile protest or not.

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

So you're not discussing the very crux of the question. Fine.

But that again confirms what I've been saying about the poor standard of education regarding what's really at stake on the part of those who seem incensed at the very thought of any person anywhere getting anything for free. Especially as it's usually done in the name of artists whose livelihoods by all accounts are nowhere near threatened.
Okay - open another thread in General Discussions and educate us, because this thread is not the place for discussions on conspiracy theories about "Bad people want to close down the internet"
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 14:19
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


Okay - open another thread in General Discussions and educate us, because this thread is not the place for discussions on conspiracy theories about "Bad people want to close down the internet"

It's really not my job to educate you on one of the most important issues of the day, but just visit EFF or simply google HADOPI or ACTA (both measures to control and hobble the internet, made very much in the name of aggressive copyright enforcement, but with great potential for other uses). Read writers who specialize in the subject, like Lawrence Lessig or Cory Doctorow.

"Bad people want to close down the internet" was an explanation aimed at getting you to understand what I'd written when I assumed that "I don't follow" was used in its very common colloquial sense of indicating non-understanding. A bit like saying "downloading is stealing" - a childish oversimplfication.


Edited by Teaflax - October 04 2009 at 16:45
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 14:31
I would like to apologise to Nick Barrett for comments that I have posted here these past few days. I was reviewing the interview that I did with him early this year and found no bitterness there, no sour grapes, no failing band. Indeed, his one comment about illegal downloads was simply how it affected middle tier acts that rely more on record sales than anyone else. More or less, here's the reality, and that's what it is.

and just like the simple plea from Marillion regarding illegal downloads  , I must say that his own message is quite polite and without  rancour to any :

"A word from Nick Barrett:

Please do not download our music except that which we have offered here free, or burn CDs of our albums.

Pendragon and Toff Records (our label) are run by the band and we totally rely on record/Cd sales for our existence and future productions.

All our albums are available directly from us via this link.

Thanks,

Nick Barrett"

Following this, I have contacted the band's site  to see if they could help me with  my local record shop - Frank's Music - in being able to order in Pendragon's albums at prices competitive to Amazon.com.  This would mean that I could support both a very important source of music in my area, AND Pendragon, too. They have kindly provided me with some contact info to see what they can work out with the store.

This, my friends, is an example of working to earn your fans' devotion. This is what musical acts that I mention in previous posts do today to ensure their followers know they are appreciated for their support. They work for it.

So, somehow today , I will once more be hinting to my wife how nice it would be to watch Pendragon's Concerto Maximo on my,  oops,  our new home theater in the basement. She missed it for my birthday, although I do appreciate the Robert Charlebois concert DVD/CD "au Grand national - Tout Ecartille" that she got for me instead.

now, where was I with my ranting ...

.
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 15:41
If I may take a step back here and try to re-present my point :

1) I don't believe illegal downloads are the one and only reason for the big drop in CD sales. They are one of many factors. And I do not believe that middle tier bands come out ahead because of P2P. But neither is it killing the ones with a devoted fanbase.

2) Many acts are striving to see what they can do to make their offerings attractive vs the ultimate bargain price - free. They aren't sitting on their arse complaining. They're out there working. Special or limited edition releases; high quality concert DVDs ; closer, more personal contact (yes, it is possible through the web); the honesty shown in knowing  the privilege they have in making a living doing what they love to do; and yes, a humble acknowledgement that they need to work to earn people's hard earned money, that they appreciate their fans choosing to support them.

3) the reality that today, time & effort is better spent on the above (#2)  than complaining about the competitive environment. How many people buy something from a manufacturer or retailer because the business says things are unfair ? Give me someone who's out there working to get people to spend their money on something they see the value in. Yeah, I can get their album for free. But this band, I'm buying, 'cause I got some free download of outtakes. Or a regular email (as authorized by the recipient) just sharing what's new or what's up with the band. Mostly , though, 'cause this album is worth every penny I paid. I'm still listening to their release from ten years ago.

4)  the musician has always faced obstacles - lack of label support, radio air play , not pretty enough for MTV, no hits, too far from major markets , the singer's a druggie, manager rips us off , etc. You do what you can with what you have to work with and have no choice but to live with the results, be they what they may. Fair or unfair. Complaining won't change things, and will most likely alienate more people than attract them to your cause.

5) And people, myself included, there is also the passionate music fan's challenge ... how do we help our idols or favourites continue making the music we enjoy ? Not by buying albums out of sympathy. Not by fighting with people over things that we cannot change. Not by bemoaning the fact that others are too ignorant or lack taste to go and buy a prog CD or concert ticket.

Buying the music or ticket helps. But you can do more. And it doesn't cost you anything. Prefer downloads ? Loved such and such extra on their latest DVD ? Wish they played in your area ?   Or ,a pet peeve of mine - having to pay $15 more for the concert DVD 'cause it comes with a CD. Let 'em know . Why ? Feedback ! No marketing firm required. The band can then reply explaining why or why not, or share plans that they may have. Let them know, you're the customer. It's your money, their livelihood. You work for yours, they do too. Businesses want feedback from their clients. You're the client, tell them what you think.

Share your enthusiasm for the band. Don't push it on people. If I'm playing Napalm Death for a drinking buddy and he doesn't like it, I'll take it out of the CD player. The acoustic Strawbs concert four years ago meant 10 more people from my hometown went to the electric Strawbs show this spring. The ones who went to the first one raved about it, which got others interested in going. They shared their enthusiasm, no arguing or insisting that all listen. They didn't dismiss those who didn't care. You never know what effect a positive word from a friend carries. Or the damage that a negative attitude can cause when it comes to creating a first impression.

"The Buckalucks should be selling millions, but they're not cause people are too stupid to buy their album / radio doesn't know what's good / this town sucks when they can't even bother to go out & see this great band"
Yeah, I'm rushing out to buy the album, eh


"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 16:00
Fantastic post, debrewguy. Absolutely fantastic. I stand humbled and awed.

Edit: I just want to point out that I'm being 100% sincere here.


Edited by Teaflax - October 04 2009 at 16:02
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 17:24
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.
What?
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 17:57
As an aside ... (originally edited from 4 paragraphs)
 is it possible that the very abundance that is available legally and illegally serves to make us overlook or pass over releases that we feel we don't have time to get to ?

If i buy 3-4 CDs that I really want, download illegally another 3-4 ( or more)  - am I really going to have as much motivation to go get the new Agalloch that I wanted, seeing that my listening time is pretty much booked for the next little while ?
If I buy 3-4 CDs, then  pick up 3-4 re-issues of long out of print obscurities because I'm love searching out lost treasures, am I going to forget that Saga put out a new CD ?

Not to condone the first, nor to condemn the second. Just to say that our new found wealth of riches , like all other niche genres (i.e. everything outside the top 40 mainstream), means that we've become gourmands that can stuff our faces at the table . er, maybe this will make more sense ...

I go to an all you can eat buffet ... I eat mussels, chicken wings, cod in batter, shrimp in batter, french fries, chicken balls (in batter) because it doesn't matter, I paid what I paid, I ate what I ate. I pay my bill and think - "you know, I really could have eaten more mussels and fried chicken if i hadn't filled on that fish / shrimp / chicken in batter."(batter being very filling)
My buddy tears into the buffet and gets two plates too. But he gets a little bit of mussels, chicken, some beef noodles, chop suey, lentils in garlic, won ton soup, pork riblets, tries out the new items on the menu - patates au gratin and shrimp egg foo yung. Then goes, "you know, next time I come here, I'm not going to bother with the egg foo yung. It was good, but I like the pork riblets & mussels more".

Here's to hoping it makes more sense on this page than in my mind ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:19
ooh, wait, maybe this is better

P2Per - I'll download the IQ album from XXX this time, because I want to buy the new Social Distortion CD. I'll buy the next IQ release. Oh wait, Lemmy's got a new side project that I'm going to buy, and I just downloaded these 5 bands that I read about. I'll wait until I've given them all a good listen ...


Purchaser - I wish I could buy that new Riverside release, 'cause i really love Rapid Eye Movement. But they've started putting out re-issues of some Acid Mothers Temple albums, and i always wondered if they were good or not. Oh, and I want to get that special limited edition that X put out before it's out of stock ...

not to condone the first, nor to condemn the second ... but to ask if we stretching ourselves thin trying to get everything.

Speaking as one in the first group, I find that at times my non-purchases take up enough time that i don't see the point in buying that new CD. Then I end up with a list of some 20 "to-buys" that I work on for a year, all the time adding some and deleting some as time goes by.

The second group, i will not put words into their mouth. But i wonder if low cost downloads, streaming , or subscription services might not help fill that urge to search out new things, to the detriment of the known familiar.

I could always mention group
 # 3 a)- i bought everything. I quit work, i don't sleep, i wear Depends and get food through an IV. leave me alone, I'm going through the Uriah Heep compilation / best of / live compilation / best of best of box set releases today & tomorrow;

and 

3 b)Yeah man,  I have downloaded everything i could find. Tomorrow, I'm going to buy my 4th 25 mega lotta Giga byte hard drive for $300 so I can download more free music. Can you help me move my couch to the basement so i can fit the hard drive on top of my computer desk ? I'm sure i have Otto Bekker's sole 1971 raga release. Hmm , what folder ? What drive ? Under what name ? Give me a day or two. I'd like to listen to it myself.

the above are meant as satire and in no way diminish the legalities of illegal downloads.
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:25
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.


Actually , Judas Priest's complaints in the mid 80s about how they should be getting more attention and success because of Iron Maiden was doing ( i.e. ripping off) what JP had been doing before (double leads, bye bye blues influences etc) did cost them some fans. Who cares for a wuss in leather ? Mind you , this was before Ram It Down ...
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:40
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:


And through necessity that's what all artists are doing, they know they cannot make the problem go away so they are working around it. But that doesn't mean they have to be happy about it, swallow every justification that d/loaders make or treat them fairly for having put the artist in that situation.


If they want to alienate parts of their potential fanbase, they're certainly entitled to do so. It just seems rather dumb.

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future. There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.


Actually , Judas Priest's complaints in the mid 80s about how they should be getting more attention and success because of Iron Maiden was doing ( i.e. ripping off) what JP had been doing before (double leads, bye bye blues influences etc) did cost them some fans. Who cares for a wuss in leather ? Mind you , this was before Ram It Down ...
Was that fans or potential fans? Wink
 
From my experience of NWOBH in the 80s is that is was a reaction against the decline of Old Wave British Heavy Metal, of which Judas Priest were certainly a part of, however they managed to bridge the gap and had reasonable success in the mid 80s (if platinum albums are anything to go by).
What?
Back to Top
Teaflax View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1225 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 18:49
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future.


Then you have not been paying attention. Direct and respectful communication with fans is what makes many acts do well in today's new market. Read up on what Trent Reznor's been doing. If he'd just been releasing CDs and whining about all of the people who don't buy them, there's no way he would have the success he's had in the last few years. Check Jonathan Coulton's donation system Banana, Monkey, Robot, which wouldn't work if he wasn't building goodwill directly with fans (not to mention his MP3 sales).

There is a huge number of people out there who feel that the activities of the RIAA have been a witch hunt on people who have done nothing wrong (or at least nothing that warrants that kind of reaction) and who will boycott artists who they feel support that behavior. I have several friends who will not buy any major label releases any more because of it. I'm kind of there myself. I prefer to purchase directly from the artist, so that I know that they get the lion's share of the money.

Thinking that fans don't pay attention to what artists say is just weird. Personally, I don't buy Beck albums any more because I find Scientology a dangerous and reprehensible cult. Are you saying you would still buy good music from an artist who came out as a racist and homophobe?

Attitudes and behaviors are hugely important, because it shapes people's views of the artists.

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.


The separation is breaking down, and anyone who wants to thrive in the music business today should be aware of that and do their best to tear those barriers down.

Sure, at some level of success, you can't personally engage every single fan, but as dabrewguy posted above, there are plenty of ways to make your fan base feel more special and involved (like Reznor's scheme to book the first couple of rows at every concert and sell the tickets to fan club members at cost to cut down on people having to pay ridiculous sums to scalpers).

I think I'm getting the attitude now; artists should sit in their ivory towers and  toss the grateful masses a CD every few years. How very 20th century of you.


Edited by Teaflax - October 04 2009 at 19:21
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 19:34
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I do not believe that whatever an artist says will alienate any of their potential fanbase - it never has in the past and it won't in the future.


Then you have not been paying attention. Direct and respectful communication with fans is what makes many acts do well in today's new market. Read up on what Trent Reznor's been doing. If he'd just been releasing CDs and whining about all of the people who don't buy it, there's no way he would have the success he's had in the last few years. Check Jonathan Coulton's donation system Banana, Monkey, Robot, which wouldn't work if he wasn't building goodwill directly with fans (not to mention his MP3 sales).
Is this going to be on the test paper? I'll promise to pay attention in the future if it is. Tongue
 
As someone who has been following Trent Reznor since Pretty Hate Machine I'm pretty sure that his current activities have no bearing on whether Ghosts I-IV or The Slip would have been sucessful or not - of course neither of us can prove that one way or the other, however his argument was with his label and his subsequent encouragement to fans to steal his earlier albums was to get back at Interscope - after that he had little choice but to find another way - I bought both albums on CD and would have done if he had signed to another label.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


There is a huge number of people out there who feel that the activities of the RIAA have been a witch hunt on people who have done nothing wrong (or at least nothing that warrants that kind of reaction) and who will boycott artists who they feel support that behavior. I have several friends who will not buy any major label releases any more because of it. I'm kind of there myself. I prefer to purchase directly from the artist, so that I know that they get the lion's share of the money.
My first reaction was "well they would feel that way wouldn't they" - but on reflection, given the complete ineffectuality of any RIAA action, I wonder what they are really rebelling against. I stopped buying later Metallica albums because I simply didn't like Load and Unload, not because of their attitude to downloading. I buy direct from the artist where possible for the same reasons as you - I also donate to bands that offer free downloads from their websites when there is a PayPal button to click on.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Thinking that fans don't pay attention to what artists say is just weird. Personally, I don't buy Beck albums any more because I find Scientology a dangerous and reprehensible cult. Are you saying you would still buy good music from an artist who came out as a racist and homophobe?

Attitudes and behaviors are hugely important, because it shapes people's views of the artists.
I don't recall saying anything like that, and anyone who knows me will tell you I never would.
 
We all have our own standards - I didn't stop liking the Beatles after John said they were more popular than jesus (I was a christian at the time) and I didn't stop listening to Gary Numan when he came out in support for Margret Thatcher and the Tories. However if I had any Johnathon King or Gary Glitter albums it would be different. Rock Stars are no brighter or cleverer than anyone else - they say stupid things sometimes and in the main we forgive them for it. Boycotting an artitst because they disaprove of people downloading albums that they didn't authourise is petty.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

There is a degree of separation between artist and public that generally makes the public think that it doesn't apply to them personally.


The separation is breaking down, and anyone who wants to thrive in the music business today should be aware of that and do their best to tear those barriers down.

Sure, at some level of success, you can't personally engage every single fan, but as dabrewguy posted above, there are plenty of ways to make your fan base feel more special and involved (like Reznor's scheme to book the first couple of rows at every concert and sell the tickets to fan club members at cost to cut down on people having to pay ridiculous sums to scalpers).
And the situation where Sigur Ros balked at the US promoter who demanded 50% of the merchandise takings, so charged $1 for every t-shirt. More power to them. I'm not condemning that kind of behaviour - I think it's great, I'm just asking that artists who say that illegal downloading is hurting them should be given the opportunity to say that without being accused of whinging and whining.
Originally posted by Teaflax Teaflax wrote:


I think I'm getting the attitude now; artists should sit in their ivory towersa nd  toss a the grateful masses a CD every few years. How very 20th century of you.
How very unperceptive of you. Stern Smile
 
What?
Back to Top
debrewguy View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 04 2009 at 19:55
before my next post, two quick comments ...
following my apologies to Nick Barrett, I should explain that what really set me off was the impression of entitlement given by one musician who seemed angry at having been (seemingly) unable to face challenges that many comparable groups find themselves in, and have managed to overcome.

pt II to follow
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 10111213>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.182 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.